Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to resent FIL expecting DH to provide for his sister?

193 replies

Porterpoets · 27/04/2026 08:08

DH and I have been writing our wills and something has come up that I’d really like to hear opinions on.

We have DC and I am the higher earner. This is relevant because it’s the principle of this that I take issue with, rather than the actual effect it will have. We have two good incomes, we’re comfortable- not rolling in money, but we manage well and our only debt is the mortgage on our family home.

DH’s elderly father, my FIL, is quietly well-off, but relatively thrifty and can be quite controlling, belligerent and often uses emotional blackmail to get his way. He also can’t see the irony in much of what he does vs what he says.

DH has an older sister, my SIL, who is single, works hard for not much financial reward and rents a modest flat. Her dream is to buy her own home but on a single, mediocre income that’s way off. She’s also only ten years off retirement herself so it may never happen at all. She has no dependents and is fiercely proud.

So here’s the issue. FIL has told DH that when FIL dies, DH becomes ‘the man of the family’ (wtf does that even mean?!?!) and must take care of his sister financially. Being a 21st Century feminist, she would baulk at this idea, but that is what he has said.

The irony here is that FIL is still with us and hence he is currently “the man of the family” and yet he refuses to put anything in place to help SIL out financially with her dream of buying a property today. He refuses to look into gifting her any money nor anything that would benefit her financial situation whilst he is still alive. And yet he has laid this moral obligation squarely at the feet of DH, once FIL has gone.

DH is an incredibly moral man and has sworn to this, taking it to mean that in his own will, he will leave a not insubstantial sum to his sister before anything goes to me and our children in the event of his death. He knows his sister well enough to recognise that if he offered or gifted her any sum whilst DH is still alive, she would refuse it, as he has DCs to provide for and he is the younger sibling (her pride is at stake if she were to accept).

Now, I’m not concerned about this part of DH’s will from a financial point of view because I earn a good enough salary that if the worst were to happen, I would not be reliant on any inheritance from DH’s estate. Similarly if I went first, I have plans in place that would ensure DH and DCs would live comfortably.

However, I can’t help but resent FIL’s actions. Of course it’s his own money and he can do what he likes with it but he is emotionally blackmailing DH (and will continue to do so beyond the grave) into redirecting DC’s inheritance. Whilst writing our wills, the solicitor asked DH several times to repeat his request and clarified to him what that might mean for our DC if my financial circumstances changed and he died, with this bequest still in place. I don’t know if I read too much into it, but she appeared quite surprised by it.

FIL is not a poor man. If he were really concerned about SIL being “provided for” he could see to that now, whilst he’s still alive. Why put the moral and financial obligation on DH?

AIBU?

OP posts:
SpainToday · 27/04/2026 14:42

Forgive me but what I don't understand is why your husband has been so foolish as to have already changed his will in favour of his sister while his father is still alive?
Has he considered what would happen to his estate - and to you and the children - if he were to be hit tomorrow by the proverbial bus and die before his father?
I'm not at all surprised that your solicitor thought all this was odd. She was under a duty to point out all the cons and disadvantages of this foolish course of action and the effect it might have on you and your children
Surely the only sensible thing for him to do was to wait until his father died, see how his estate was to be distributed, and only then amend his will if necessary?
Your DH has spectacularly put the cart before the horse!

Very good point @Manxexile

Manxexile · 27/04/2026 14:38

@Porterpoets - "... Whilst writing our wills, the solicitor asked DH several times to repeat his request and clarified to him what that might mean for our DC if my financial circumstances changed and he died, with this bequest still in place. I don’t know if I read too much into it, but she appeared quite surprised by it..."

"... Foolishly perhaps, it hadn’t occurred to me that FIL might have left it all to DH (Christ, you’re right, he probably bloody has…) If he has, the suggestions made for DH to split between himself and SIL is a very wise and reasonable one and I would certainly then insist on a change to DH’s will to remove SIL..."

Forgive me but what I don't understand is why your husband has been so foolish as to have already changed his will in favour of his sister while his father is still alive?

Has he considered what would happen to his estate - and to you and the children - if he were to be hit tomorrow by the proverbial bus and die before his father?

I'm not at all surprised that your solicitor thought all this was odd. She was under a duty to point out all the cons and disadvantages of this foolish course of action and the effect it might have on you and your children

Surely the only sensible thing for him to do was to wait until his father died, see how his estate was to be distributed, and only then amend his will if necessary?

Your DH has spectacularly put the cart before the horse!

HisNotHes · 27/04/2026 14:35

MILLYmo0se · 27/04/2026 13:32

I think DH has completely misunderstood FIL, I'd imagine that FIL is leaving everything to DH as the man and he will be in charge of doling it out to SIL as she is a silly woman that would fritter away a large sum (in DIL eyes at least), and they ll likely both have money unnecessarily wasted in taxes in this scenario
Sure the likelihood is that SIL will be dead or in a home by time DH dies or within a coupke of years given she is the elder, so how on earth has he interpreted FIL as meaning he should leave her money in his own will?

Why do you think taxes will be wasted if he leaves it all to his son rather than splitting between son and daughter? It’s the estate that pays IHT, there aren’t individual allowances for beneficiaries.

ParmaVioletTea · 27/04/2026 14:33

He owns his large London home outright so presumably that will be split between DH and SIL-

Thing is @Porterpoets I suspect he's leaving it to your DH. Bonkers if he does, but a fairly straightforward legal "deed" of something or other will enable you DH to split it 50/50 with his sister. That's the only ethical ting to do in that situation.

But there's a whole novel written by Jane Austen which turns on the brother's lack of ethical consideration in just this situation ...

Justthisandthat · 27/04/2026 14:25

NevergonnagiveHughup · 27/04/2026 08:17

Will SIL not get an inheritance from FIL when he dies, thus negating the need for DH to bequest her anything????

This!

Worrying34 · 27/04/2026 14:18

Why did you put this in the will before your FIL died? The FIL was talking about what happens when he dies, not when your husband does.

What your FIL is (vaguely) suggesting already sounds mad but then your husband seems to have taken it one step further!

Manxexile · 27/04/2026 14:17

Namechangerage · 27/04/2026 08:40

I’m confused. Why doesn’t the FIL just leave his estate to his 2 children equally (or a bigger share to her) and then SIL is “taken care of” anyway? Why does your DH need to be involved?

I was wondering if this is a "cultural" thing...

outerspacepotato · 27/04/2026 14:17

It seems like your father in law is deliberately trying to deprive you of assets in the event your husband died before you.

Is the sum of money your husband is leaving his sister significant enough it would put you in a huge financial bind to pay out, or even possibly force the sale of your home?

It still in a way forces you as the higher earner to subsidize his sister ahead of your own kids. That would not sit well with me.

Manxexile · 27/04/2026 14:15

Porterpoets · 27/04/2026 08:35

We haven’t a clue what’s in FIL’s will. He refuses to discuss it and it makes them all enormously uncomfortable to talk about FIL’s inevitable death and what might come afterwards. I’ve tried to broker a sensible, pragmatic conversation but no one wishes to engage. He owns his large London home outright so presumably that will be split between DH and SIL- or perhaps he’ll leave it all to charity. DH suspects some may be.

To clarify, it’s a nominal sum that DH is leaving to his sister, not a percentage, so it will degrade with inflation, over time.

Edited

"... To clarify, it’s a nominal sum that DH is leaving to his sister, not a percentage, so it will degrade with inflation, over time"

Hold on - do you really mean "nominal", as in very small or in name only, or do you mean a "fixed sum" or specific bequest?

If it's really a nominal sum then who cares. But a fixed sum or specific bequest could be relatively substantial and significant

[Edit - Ah. I see you clarified what you meant]

Nearly50omg · 27/04/2026 14:14

Your dh is the problem putting his adult sister above his children and wife!!!!

SethBrogan · 27/04/2026 14:14

WavesBeachToddlerCastles · 27/04/2026 13:56

You only have one course of action - amend YOUR will to remove anything for DH. Everything you have must be ringfenced for your children. Otherwise your hard earned money will go to the sister in law! Not much else you can do, don't get involved with their bonkers chat.

I agree with this. I would also point out the utter irony of these two “men of the house” actually using a woman’s labour and wage (yours) to make up their shortcomings. Once again we have a “traditional” man who is perfectly happy for a woman to make more of the money while he publicly claims to be the “man of the house” and is happy to put her money on the line for his legacy.

Worrying34 · 27/04/2026 14:14

Why does this sound like a kind of weird modern day version of the start of Sense and Sensibility?

catipuss · 27/04/2026 14:10

Why doesn't FIL just leave most/all of his wealth to his daughter then she won't need supporting by your DH. Currently if your DH pre-deceased his father his sister would inherit from him and then from FIL. It seems a daft arrangement, by all means promise to look after her when FIL dies, but that doesn't mean he should create a will in her favour before FIL dies. Her situation may be vastly different if she inherits a lot from FIL. Or is this old fashioned patriarch intending to leave everything to his son?

Muffinmam · 27/04/2026 14:10

Your husband isn’t particularly bright.

If he dies before his father then his sister will inherit in place of his son’s.

Your husband shouldn’t bequeath anything to his sister. Instead, his father should set up an irrevocable trust while he is still alive.

It seems like your father in law is deliberately trying to deprive you of assets in the event your husband died before you.

Jamesblonde2 · 27/04/2026 14:00

Wow, I’d be furious OP. Your DH should be telling FIL that he should make provision for his daughter now if he’s so concerned about her. It’s up to SIL to manage her own life quite frankly.

And who is SIL going to leave all her new found wealth too if she has no children. The local cat charity?

Mangelwurzelfortea · 27/04/2026 13:57

MaggiesShadow · 27/04/2026 13:47

The only way this would make a modicum of sense would be if FIL has left everything to DH in his will, which makes him a sexist knob head.

DH could, and should, see if this is the case and then make plans accordingly, ie leave SIL's half of FIL's estate to her, or gift it to her when the time comes.

However, if he's decided that he's going to leave her thousands in his own will because he wants to play at being the 'man of the house' then he has sadly inherited his father's knob-headedness.

That still wouldn't make sense as he's 10 years younger than his sister, so it's more likely his sister will die before he does.

Pallisers · 27/04/2026 13:57

The numerical bequest will take precedence over any residual bequest. So basically when settling the estate the bequest to SIL is paid first and whatever is left goes to you and the children. At the moment your dh probably thinks that he will die with an estate worth a fair bit and a bequest of say 50k would not be a problem. But he has no idea what will actually happen, what his cash flow will be like, how much liquidity you might need if he dies, how life might unfold or what your children might need in the future. I feel for that solicitor watching a man make a stupid decision and trying her best to make him think twice.

You really do have a dh problem. FIL is not your problem - you didn't marry him you don't have children with him. How he settles his estate for tax purposes is not your business. If he leaves everything to your dh then a simple deed of variation giving half to his sister can solve that.

But your dh and the father of your children IS your problem. I can see why he ended up the way he is because of who reared him but stop framing this as the decision of a moral man. It isn't. It is the decision of a damaged man from a dysfunctional family and as a result he is prioritising his father and what his father thinks his sister needs over his own young children. I think he needs to talk to someone about this - a therapist not a solicitor. What other things is FIL going to ask him to do??

WavesBeachToddlerCastles · 27/04/2026 13:56

You only have one course of action - amend YOUR will to remove anything for DH. Everything you have must be ringfenced for your children. Otherwise your hard earned money will go to the sister in law! Not much else you can do, don't get involved with their bonkers chat.

Mangelwurzelfortea · 27/04/2026 13:56

Your FIL is throwing his weight around, wielding what power he has left over his children by not telling them what's in the will and trying to dictate what they do with their money/futures. This 'inheritance' is just the tool he's using to manipulate them. No doubt your husband has been brainwashed since childhood into thinking of his dad as 'the big man' but his father sounds like a narcissistic dick to me.

Your husband needs to tell him he can do what he likes with his own money, and he in turn will do what he likes with his own.

AlphaApple · 27/04/2026 13:53

Your FiL is being ridiculous and your DH is being unreasonable for leaving money to his sister while he has a wife and children.

I don't blame you for being unhappy.

1willgetthere · 27/04/2026 13:49

I think you and DH have misunderstood FIL. I would take it to mean if SIL is struggling to pay an unexpected bill, help her out. Which I think most families would do for each other and as SIL is single it would be reassuring for FIL to know she could rely on you and DH if in a squeeze.

I very much doubt FIL meant leave SIL who is ten years older a big chunk in your will.

MaggiesShadow · 27/04/2026 13:47

The only way this would make a modicum of sense would be if FIL has left everything to DH in his will, which makes him a sexist knob head.

DH could, and should, see if this is the case and then make plans accordingly, ie leave SIL's half of FIL's estate to her, or gift it to her when the time comes.

However, if he's decided that he's going to leave her thousands in his own will because he wants to play at being the 'man of the house' then he has sadly inherited his father's knob-headedness.

Mere1 · 27/04/2026 13:42

Yoheresthestory · 27/04/2026 08:11

your problem is your DH being ridiculous.

hopefully she will inherit well from FIL. But your DH needs to speak sense and not prioritise his sister over you.

This is the only point you need to consider. The solicitor made this clear. Your DH is prioritising his father’s wishes over providing for his own children. That’s wrong.

TheFluffyTwo · 27/04/2026 13:41

Just to flag, OP, that if I were you I would still seriously consider what I did with my own assets, only because your DH has shown that he does not have reliable judgement when it comes to protecting his children financially and is easily emotionally manipulated.

He is the sort of man I can see remarrying and not planning for the possibility of him predeceasing Wife #2 / trusting to everyone's basic decency rather than making sure that your assets (never mind his) do not end up with the children of a stranger to you and missing your own children.

I don't mean this nastily - he sounds like a very nice man who tries to be honourable and decent, and I'm sure that's partly why you love him - but he does not sound in any way clear-eyed, logical or pragmatic when it comes to finances and I would be very concerned to leave my children's financial stability in his hands if he were without you.

TheFluffyTwo · 27/04/2026 13:40

Porterpoets · 27/04/2026 12:58

Thank you for your responses. @PuzzledObserver sums this up in a very careful (and polite way, I might add- not true of all responses on here).

FIL does not have many years left. Eight years ago I began to suggest a gift (that would have freed anyone from IHT by now) but the conversation was shut down. The difficulty is striking the right balance between being respectful of their family’s relationship with one another and not upsetting anyone, whilst clearly being the voice of reason and advocating for my own family’s future.

Some appear to think the answer is to shout, scream and threaten divorce but I can assure you, that is not the right way to go about this if I want to remain civil with his family (and I do).

Foolishly perhaps, it hadn’t occurred to me that FIL might have left it all to DH (Christ, you’re right, he probably bloody has…) If he has, the suggestions made for DH to split between himself and SIL is a very wise and reasonable one and I would certainly then insist on a change to DH’s will to remove SIL.

Thanks to all the posters suggesting I make SIL aware of the ‘man of the house’ conversation. You are right, she would be furious, though who knows what she’s been told. I will have to handle this tactfully with her.

This is all good food for thought and I appreciate the responses.

Edited

Just to flag, OP, that if I were you I would still seriously consider what I did with my own assets, only because your DH has shown that he does not have reliable judgement when it comes to protecting his children financially and is easily emotionally manipulated.

He is the sort of man I can see remarrying and not planning for the possibility of him predeceasing Wife #2 / trusting to everyone's basic decency rather than making sure that your assets (never mind his) do not end up with the children of a stranger to you and missing your own children.

I don't mean this nastily - he sounds like a very nice man who tries to be honourable and decent, and I'm sure that's partly why you love him - but he does not sound in any way clear-eyed, logical or pragmatic when it comes to finances and I would be very concerned to leave my children's financial stability in his hands if he were without you.